Translate

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The Liberal Party And Its Satellites

It is time to be frank. There is a danger advancing upon the Australia First Party and upon the patriotic movement in general. There is an attempt to marginalize the party and the movement overall, to contain it by various means - and as part of that overall strategy to have alternate (but similar looking) groups operate as competitors and distractions and agencies of ideological and political confusion in order to limit its impact and its growth. We dub the groups which perform this service – satellites. We use this term because they front for the Liberal Party and are subordinated to it ideologically and politically and circle around it in loyalty. They are the outer defence guards (and conduits/mediums/channels) of the political order.

The Australian Protectionist Party

The disintegration of the old Australia First Party in the period 2006-7 was a direct result of the new ideology and politics of conservatism seeking to take it over. When the would-be conspirators failed to capture this respected vehicle, they opted to wreck it on the way out, eventually setting themselves up as the Australian Protectionist Party (APP).

The attack upon the old Australia First Party began in 2005, just after the Civil Uprising at Cronulla. As the party struggled to get the numbers to re-register as a Federal party, a dissenting group around Mark Wilson was formed.

(i) Mark Wilson has a long history in the Australian scene after arriving from Britain in the early Nineties. In Britain, he was a nationalist and member of the British National Party (BNP). It does appear that in 2005 he adopted the then-new line of the BNP on civic identity and Israel. That party, having once been nationalist, revised the essentials of British nationalist ideology and proclaimed that if it was to oppose Islamic migration to Britain it had to support Israel as a foreign policy option and the Zionist lobby in Britain as a de facto ally; via this new route it was claimed the ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ accusations against BNP would be overcome, the group would get favourable press and ‘reasonable’ members and voters and enter the mainstream. The BNP also started to operate in a way that made ‘Britons’ out of alien immigrants if they spoke English, disliked Islam and so forth. It was also considered by Mark Wilson that Australia’s connection with Britain could be strengthened by ethicising (sic) the relationship to a certain degree and the APP and the BNP were proclaimed brother parties straight after the split within Australia First in August 2007.

In 2006-7 Wilson attempted to impose his new line upon Australia First by creating or engendering an internal climate of chaos such that ‘power’ could be seized. In practise, he campaigned for purging persons whom the media (sic) might consider unacceptable, ridding the party of people who had a critical attitude towards Zionism and demanding the party copy the supposedly successful methods and ideas of the BNP. This line was called mainstreaming. In the period 2006-7, this disruptionist game was played with some energy and with results. The targeting of individuals was the key method and a number of leading nationalists found themselves the targets of smear and disinformation. This propaganda was disseminated by word of mouth and via web-boards.

Mark Wilson’s most amusing effort was to attempt to foist upon the party a part-time pornography salesman and former Liberal Party member, Darrin Hodges, as ‘Australia’s Nick Griffin’ (Griffin: leader of the BNP), a “cleanskin” who would lead the clean movement. Hodges created a parallel structure within Australia First which liaised with CDP, other Christian Zionists and Middle Eastern Christians. Wilson has always been aware of Hodges’s rabid pro Zionism which centred on the exaggerated anti-Islamist style and the ‘need’ (sic) for a united anti Islamic front. This was all rather ironic as Wilson was previously one of Zionism’s most ardent critics inside the Australian nationalist movement. In those earlier days, he regarded any refusal to confront Zionism as a sign of ideological weakness, a veritable litmus test to pass for any potential cadre. In his new period after 2005, he would tell genuine nationalists that he didn’t really believe the new line was ‘true’, but merely that it was the right way forward. By taking this position, some people would indeed follow him into APP, creating a group with two faces: those clever ones who would only be pro Zionist in public, but who knew the score – and those who regarded Israel as a “Project Of Civilisation”.We will leave to God to sort out who is who and who believes what. It is beyond us to play nod/nod and wink/wink.

When it was clear that Australia First could not be taken over, the Wilson group, already primed in advance, took the ideological label of Protectionism. This was itself revealing. The first Protectionist Party was one of Australia’s original conservative parties and it was an alternate and ‘softer’ ‘patriotic’ position to that of the nationalist-based labour movement which inspires the modern nationalist position.

In the pursuit of his mainstreaming goals, Wilson has steered the APP towards the Liberal Party. The APP has recruited persons who were previously Liberal officials, liaised with the notorious Michael Darby of the Liberal ‘conservative’ group, encouraged his nominal boss (Andrew Phillips, president of APP) to write regularly on the Liberal web-board New Conservative and so forth in order to recruit and influence the disgruntled conservative voter. Indeed, Andrew Phillips also did a stint in the Liberal Party in the late Nineties. He considers himself a conservative and once tried to launch a so-called Australian Conservative Party.

Significantly for this discussion, in February 2009 when in Sydney, Mark Wilson negotiated a friendship arrangement with the Klub Nation group – which hitherto he had called ‘Nazis’. He had denounced this group consistently for years and the parent Palmer/Coleman gang before that. In theory, he was all for ridding the nationalist movement of anyone who could be called by the media a ‘Nazi’ extremist; anything smacking of that was said to get in the way of creating the pro Zionist anti Islamic front. Yet, there he was dealing with ‘neo-nazis’. Just like his friend Hodges who told a group of young Queensland nationalists at the Sydney Forum in August 2007 that he was a “National Socialist”!Why say such a thing? The wheel of Liberal interest turns. Opposites unite because they are not opposite. Wilson was looking to direct hammer blows at Australia First and other nationalist people by having a two flank attack: his wing would say the nationalists were unacceptable and extreme; the so-called neo-nazis would say that the nationalists were too soft in their ideas and methods. It is always a matter of understandingwho is paying the piper.

Unfortunately, Mark Wilson has done great damage in dividing nationalist people with his games, severing long-standing friendships and relationships with his false flag operation.

In Summation

We have painted a picture of determined individuals and groups targeting nationalist politics for destruction. There are patterns. They have common ideological positions based around mainstreaming or in the mirror reverse will talk of violence and revolution. They shamelessly plot against the groups they may join or conduct activities against them from the outside. They often have connections to the Liberal Party and to its ‘conservative faction’. Whilst they are all different and independent, the inter-linkages suggest at least some degree of co-ordination in their work. Our satellite model does not preclude that. Indeed, it ensures that the satellites are always kept focused on their mission.

Total Pageviews

About Me

This blog site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.